Western Railroad Discussion > Amtrak engineer says Nevada crossing was dangerous

In a e-mail to friends and fellow workers, the engineer of the Amtrak train struck broadside by a tractor trailer called the site of the accident" a very dangerous crossing" and offered suggestions on how to help prevent such accidents in the future.
"At the hearing, the National Transportation Safety Board inspector asked what I though could be done to have prevented this accident and what could help to avoid a similar one in the future," Amtrak engineer Ron Kaminkow wrote in the e-mail. My response: post a permanent speed zone of perhaps 40mph through the crossing, together with warning signs with flashing lights further out from the crossing. (Maybe a "rumble strip" a half mile out would help to alert motorists to the crossing). In the bright sunshine of the desert, going 70 to 80 mph down a lonely highway in the middle of nowhere, a busy railroad crossing requires more protection, more advance warning. With such provisions in place, it is far likely that such a catastrophic wreck like the one on June 24 could take place.
Kamainkow said in the e-mali; that"there has been all kinds of close calls reported by train crews at the Highway 95 crossing in recent years. In fact, just nine months ago, Amtrak Train No. 5 (the same train involved in the June 24 crash) was put into emergency at this crossing by the engineer as he fully expected an imminent collision with another truck, this one headed south bound. The truck skidded, hit the guardrail and slammed into the pole that supports the overhead flashers, which the crashed into the train. Miraculously, the truck failed to hit the train and no one was hurt in this 'trail run' for what would happen just nine months later."

Amtrak is suing John Davis Trucking Company for alleged negligence in its training of the driver of the tractor trailer. Amount 10 million dollars in damages.

Alexandra Curtis, a Amtrak car attendant is also suing the trucking company.

Lana Dickerson, also a Amtrak car attendant is also suing the trucking.

Lana Dickerson, is also suing Amtrak, her employer. She says she was trying to lead passengers out of the burning train but had to double back through a smoky car past dead victim and jump out a window after their initial escape route was blocked by a locked door.

Excerts from a article I read.

Loose lips sink ships? The percentages of blame shift to and fro... === === = === JLH

was this a public hearing ... if it was public i'm sure the trucking company lawyers were present for all testimony with a real vested interested in the statements of the Amtrak engineer of train 5 involved in the collision that day ... i can see it now lawyers for the trucking company sending a letter to the NTSB ... we would like a copy of all testimony regarding the Amtrak train/truck crossing crash in Nevada July 24th 2011 that involved our company

Out_Of_Service Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> was this a public hearing ... if it was public I'm
> sure the trucking company lawyers were present for
> all testimony with a real vested interested in the
> statements of the Amtrak engineer of train 5
> involved in the collision that day ... i can see
> it now lawyers for the trucking company sending a
> letter to the NTSB ... we would like a copy of all
> testimony regarding the Amtrak train/truck
> crossing crash in Nevada July 24th 2011 that
> involved our company

The article doesn't say if the hearing was public. The copy of the engineers e-mail was made available to the Associated Press. I don't know if by him or one of the receiptants of the email.

Just change the highway, put in a 40 mph "S" curve on the highway on the approach to the crossing. This will make the highway 90 deg to the railroad. Traffic will either slow down or go in the dirt. Advance flashers are becoming quite common at major highways that cross railroads at grade. All statements made to the NTSB will become public just part of the process.

supt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just change the highway, put in a 40 mph "S" curve
> on the highway on the approach to the crossing.
> This will make the highway 90 deg to the railroad.
> Traffic will either slow down or go in the dirt.
> Advance flashers are becoming quite common at
> major highways that cross railroads at grade. All
> statements made to the NTSB will become public
> just part of the process.


if they supposedly have a hard time with a straight hwy crossing what makes ya think a curved one with a speed reduction will be any better ... they'll just shoot thru the crossing at 40mph instead of the posted



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/11 18:29 by Out_Of_Service.

supt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just change the highway, put in a 40 mph "S" curve
> on the highway on the approach to the crossing.
> This will make the highway 90 deg to the railroad.
> Traffic will either slow down or go in the dirt.
> Advance flashers are becoming quite common at
> major highways that cross railroads at grade. All
> statements made to the NTSB will become public
> just part of the process.

Didn't they used to call these "suicide crossings"?

Build a overpass.

Based on the skid marks I'll bet the truck was going a lot faster than 40 mph. At least at 40 mph there is a better chance to stop on short notice. I still don't believe he did not see the train. I see this everyday I work, impatient people trying to beat me to the crossing. The crossing at Sheridan Ca. on the UP's valley sub is a good example of a well engineered warning system.

supt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The crossing at
> Sheridan Ca. on the UP's valley sub is a good
> example of a well engineered warning system.

Yes, that crossing is well engineered. The crossing itself is very busy, but is different than the US95 crossing as it is located in a small village instead of open country and the crossing itself is at an odd angle. The road parallels the tracks and just shifts from one side to the other at the crossing.

It should be noted that the Sheridan crossing is either going to be eliminated or at least will see a massive drop in traffic as Caltrans is constructing a bypass to the west that includes a overpass over the railroad further south near Lincoln.

I'd question the engineer's qualifications to render an expert opinion on a highway crossing of a railroad. I'm not an expert on the design and construction of highway crossings and I don't think he is, either. Nor is anybody on this board save a highway design engineer. A lay-person's opinion is just that - a mere opinion. It doesn't come in as evidence. An expert's opinion can be admitted after he is qualified as an expert - and the key is being qualified as an expert. A railroad engineer isn't a highway engineer.

John Gezelius
Tustin, CA

john1082 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd question the engineer's qualifications to
> render an expert opinion on a highway crossing of
> a railroad. I'm not an expert on the design and
> construction of highway crossings and I don't
> think he is, either. Nor is anybody on this board
> save a highway design engineer. A lay-person's
> opinion is just that - a mere opinion. It doesn't
> come in as evidence. An expert's opinion can be
> admitted after he is qualified as an expert - and
> the key is being qualified as an expert. A
> railroad engineer isn't a highway engineer.

If the crossing is of concern to more than than several railroad engineers, then I would disagree whether or not they are qualified. Engineers, highway or other wise, have designed things that in theory should work, but in practical application, don't. It's usually the person who uses or works in the problem area that discovers there is a problem, and then there is usually a body count before the problem gets corrected, hopefully with a better design.

needles_sub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Out_Of_Service Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > was this a public hearing ... if it was public
> I'm
> > sure the trucking company lawyers were present
> for
> > all testimony with a real vested interested in
> the
> > statements of the Amtrak engineer of train 5
> > involved in the collision that day ... i can
> see
> > it now lawyers for the trucking company sending
> a
> > letter to the NTSB ... we would like a copy of
> all
> > testimony regarding the Amtrak train/truck
> > crossing crash in Nevada July 24th 2011 that
> > involved our company
>
> The article doesn't say if the hearing was public.
> The copy of the engineers e-mail was made
> available to the Associated Press. I don't know if
> by him or one of the receiptants of the email.

Well its public now!

I think what we are talking about here is doing what is minimal necessary as opposed to going the extra steps to avoid accidents. It does little good to say "the truck drive should have been more alert". We may all agree and that may be the finding However, The cost of extra advance warning signs, flashing lights and rumble strips is minimal. You see this all the time.

I would say injecting an "S" could have negative unintended consequences.

bob

It seems that there is a common tendency to attribute "dangerousness" to objects and/or situations when in fact it is the way human beings deal with these that results in danger. For example, a section of highway may be referred to as dangerous because an unusual number of accidents have occurred there. In some cases, of course, a road might be dangerous because something is in the road (a fallen tree, debris), because there is poor or lacking signage, and so forth, but most of the time accidents are the result of human error or carelessness. I guess it is a common tendency to blame something or someone outside ourselves for our mistakes.

I'm astonished that Amtrak allowed its engineer to testify while the matter was still the subject of a criminal investigation in Nevada.

Any public testimony, even if it's not under oath, offers a wide range of opportunities for opposing counsel to attack subsequent testimony or challenge evidence offered.

John,

I am a highway engineer. One thing that we can't design ourselves out of is stupidity. I don't know this crossing at all, but I have worked on a few others in New Jersey and nearly 100 signalized intersections. We get public reaction quite often to lower a speed limit or design some other change to a roadway due to crashes (see we don't even call them accidents anymore). Quite often when we review the crash records the horrendous accident was caused by an impared driver or someone going well over the posted speed limit.

On straight roadways in rural areas it is very difficult to get drivers to abide by a posted speed limit unless you have heavy enforcement.

The ultimate solution for this and any other grade crossing is grade separation. But it may not be feasible everyplace.

I should also add that I have been in a few lawsuits over items I have designed. The Amtrak Engineer's opinion will most definitely be used by the defendant. Doesn't matter if he is a layperson or an expert. He was involved in the crash, so his observations, opinions, and actions will most definitely be used by the trucking company. I am kind of shocked Amtrak's lawyers didn't tell him to keep quiet.

CV the civil E in NJ


john1082 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd question the engineer's qualifications to
> render an expert opinion on a highway crossing of
> a railroad. I'm not an expert on the design and
> construction of highway crossings and I don't
> think he is, either. Nor is anybody on this board
> save a highway design engineer. A lay-person's
> opinion is just that - a mere opinion. It doesn't
> come in as evidence. An expert's opinion can be
> admitted after he is qualified as an expert - and
> the key is being qualified as an expert. A
> railroad engineer isn't a highway engineer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/11 06:23 by cjvrr.

Just my opinion, but there are numerous crossings over the BNSF transcon in the desert of California, and I don't believe there have been a lot of accidents at many of them. Several that come to mind is the Hwy. 95 crossing at Arrowhead Junction, the Rt. 66 crossing at Goffs, the Rt. 66 crossing at Amboy. Just curious if any of the BNSF employees in that area have had many close calls at any of these crossings.

Not to pass judgement on the dead trucker, but from what I read about the accident, he didn't have a really good exemplary driving record, and no matter what you do, you can't build "idiot proof".

Ron Evans
Golden Valley, AZ

Being intimately familiar with this particular grade crossing for over 50 years this is my solution to the problems associated with it:

Build a grade separation over the tracks for this Federal Highway or Restrict its use as a grade crossing from stupid drivers (the motoring public).

Back before the Hwy 58 freeway was built between Mojave & Bakersfield, old Hwy 466 crossed the SP at Monolith on an S-crossing that was the site of numerous fatal collisions. Same thing at the south end of Mojave before that overpass was built, and just north of Palmdale. Just one of the reasons the Interstate System tried to stay as far away from railroads as they could and is all grade-seperated...

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA